The red-light cameras that Albemarle County installed at the intersection of Route 29 and Rio Road in 2011 have caught thousands of red-light runners and generated thousands in ticket revenue. But according to a story first broken by the Chicago Tribune, representatives of the Australia-based company that operates the cameras, Redflex, have been caught red-handed bribing a Chicago transportation official. The company is now under federal investigation.

Following the Chicago bribery scandal, Redflex has also been losing contracts across the country. City officials in Orange County, Florida, San Rafael, California. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and Prescott, Arizona, who were considering using the systems, which nab red-light runners with still photography and video, have all decided against contracting with the company.

"I just don't think it's appropriate for us to congratulate a company that has this type of core value failure," Orange County Commissioner Fred Brummer told the Chicago Tribune, before a 7-0 vote against Redflex. "The appearance, to me, is just dreadful, and appearances matter."

Here in Albemarle County, police and government officials were enthusiastic about the installation of the controversial cameras, claiming they would eventually make the troublesome intersection safer. According to Albemarle spokesperson Lee Catlin, the county will "continue to closely monitor the situation [with the Redflex bribery scandal] and consider our options, including termination of our contract should circumstances warrant," but there are no immediate plans to cut ties with Redflex and the red-light camera system.

However, Catlin says the county is "aware of the allegations involving two Redflex employees," and in light of that situation "have thoroughly reviewed our history and relationship with Redflex and received a full explanation from company regarding how they are responding."

According to the 2012 data, there has been a reduction in crashes due to red-light running, from 23 in 2010, before the cameras were installed, to 12 in 2011. However, compared to 2010, overall crashes at the intersection (which includes those not directly related to red-light running) since the cameras were installed actually increased in 2011.

Indeed, according to a 2007 Virginia Transportation Research Council study, determining the real effectiveness of the cameras can be elusive, as the findings could be turned on their heads by specific intersections that see a general increase in all types of crashes, regardless of the cameras. In Fairfax County, red-light running decreased at four camera intersections studied, but increased at five other intersections. "Every intersection is different," said one of the study's research scientists.

There has, however, been one clear bit of data: The cameras generate big bucks. In 2011, 6,187 red-light runners were nabbed at the 29/Rio intersection, generating $309,350 in gross ticket revenue. And keep in mind– that's with cameras at only two approaches to the intersection. In 2012, tickets issued dipped a bit to 5,656, but that's still $282,800 in gross revenue. The amount of money the cameras can generate, especially with a big-city contract, was at the heart of the Chicago scandal.

According to the Tribune, which broke the story, Redflex company officials allegedly were paying bribes to the Chicago city transportation official who oversaw the contract with the company, in the form of 17 all-expenses-paid vacation trips, including meals and golf. The company also paid a close friend of the transportation official $2 million in consulting fees, money that likely went to the transportation official.

And Chicago isn't the only place where there has been trouble. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, city officials voted to refund nearly $20 million in fines and shut down the program after a scandal involving a lobbyist who worked for Redflex, according to the Tribune.

Since then, the president of the Australia-based company has been appearing before community officials in person where contracts are being considered, trying to stop the bleeding on a scandal that has cost the company tens of millions in lost revenue.

18 comments

Physics May 16th, 2013 | 7:39pm

One of the reasons why people run red lights on 29 is because of the terrible timing of the lights. For example, at the intersections of 29 and Rio and 29 and Hydraulic, the green lights for a left turn are never long enough. If you're in a designated left turn lane, you should be able to get through the intersection in one cycle of the light. But right now, you might get half the cars or less through a left turn. This makes people mad and more prone to run red lights. Of course, with all the money the government is making off of the camera, what incentive do they have to fix the problem.

Just about all the lights on 29 have problems. With all the non-red-light cameras and sensors at intersections, somebody shouldn't have to wait three minutes to make a left turn when there isn't any opposing traffic coming (like at the intersection in front of Schewel's).

mike May 16th, 2013 | 8:09pm

of course, anybody seeking a public contract has to bribe or kickback to the public officials. I'm from Ne PA where we are experts in this field It is the only way to do business. Indeed, the only way you can do business. If somebody or company was entirely honest, their bid would be rejected because, "ya can't trust 'em they're too honest."

MallWalker May 17th, 2013 | 9:37am

RE: "One of the reasons why people run red lights on 29 is because of the terrible timing of the lights. "

The primary reason they run it is because they are impatient, selfish and entitled.

Oldhoo72 May 17th, 2013 | 9:52am

A government employee in Chicago was bribed? I'm shocked. SHOCKED! Having lived in Chicago in the 90's, I didn't realize that that was a crime.

Sparky May 17th, 2013 | 11:07am

In early 2012, I didn't stop all the way turning right on red from Rio to 29S, so they sent me a ticket with a fine or court date. I blew it off and nothing has happened yet.

Maybe the other shoe is going to drop, but I suspect they know they don't have a leg to stand on and can't take any action against people who simply refuse to pay this extralegal tax.

I have gotten camera tickets in other states that have been turned over to collection agencies, but I never pay 'em unless it gets in the way of getting a mortgage. I'm not trying to get all John Whitehead, but it's not right and I'm not playing along. The cameras aren't there to make anybody safe, they're there to steal money.

Watch your speed in Louisa County, on 64 especially! One giant speed trap, that county...

Ibix May 17th, 2013 | 11:57am

"Here in Albemarle County, police and government officials were enthusiastic about the installation of the controversial cameras, claiming they would eventually make the troublesome intersection safer...There has, however, been one clear bit of data: The cameras generate big bucks."

When government and the cops are telling us that they're just keeping us "safe", it actually means that cops and the government are looking to increase revenue.

jimi "Machine Gunner" hendrix May 17th, 2013 | 2:41pm

Ummm... government looking for more money? I find that hard to believe.

Someone May 18th, 2013 | 6:33am

Looks like they pulled a Chertoff

Moe May 18th, 2013 | 11:16pm

Corruption in Chicago? Who would have thunk it?

Mike May 18th, 2013 | 11:21pm

What's even worse and MUST BE STOPPED is the installation of these things at Pantops at Hwy 20 and 250.

If you are coming into town and want to turn right onto Stony Point Rd.....WHERE IS THE TURN LANE? THERE ISN'T ONE!!!! An intersection of two major roads and no turning lane. Spend the money moving all the power lines and sign clutter away, and cut in a generous turn lane.

If you build a business that employs a few people VDOT requires a turn lane. How about for this road with a 20,000 plus car-count per day?

Ren May 20th, 2013 | 4:22pm

Interesting... it's the same old story...
One small bunch of grapes (the employees who did wrong) make the whole vineyard (the company) look bad. Nevermind the fact that the vineyard disposed of the bad grapes, and the very fine they came from... Nevermind the fact that the vineyard continues to make great wine... Nevermind the fact that a little wine is good for the soul... Nevermind... You will always have someone from the outside looking in, thinking they know it all, who submit a "review" that it is a bad vineyard, influencing others that follow blindly who end up ranting on about general opinions rather than facts.

Bottom line, to all the ranting grapes in the world...
You're either a good grape or a bad grape. And no matter how good the vineyard is - every vineyard has both good and bad grapes. Most bad grapes, unfortunately, go undiscovered (for a time). However, what makes or breaks an honest vineyard is how it deals with exposed bad grapes.

Hook Reader May 20th, 2013 | 8:57pm

> One small bunch of grapes (the employees who did wrong) make the whole vineyard (the company) look bad.

Thanks for your input, Mr. Trump.

joe May 22nd, 2013 | 10:32am

Impatient..
Well..maybe..
but then again you can tweak teh conditions
to make even a lab rat (which we all appear to be)
impatient.
Space out a few lights..
Do this on a continual basis..
Mix in Community officials (fee gatherers)
and start playing with yellow light time duration.
Its happening.
The wizard is behind the curtain..and he is counting his money.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57556962/nyc-accused-of-rigging-r...

G Luv May 23rd, 2013 | 12:57pm

"The primary reason they run it is because they are impatient, selfish and entitled."

I present Sparky as Exhibit A...

Dan Van Castle May 23rd, 2013 | 5:34pm

A Sarasota judge is reviewing constitutionality of red light cameras. Judge has not ruled. Check this case out...

sometimes you just get caught in the intersection. the yellow is made short, but you are going too fast (even speed limit) to stop cleanly and safely behind the white line. You are in the intersection when it turns red. I guess with the new cameras, you are the f....ed.

MallWalker May 25th, 2013 | 1:16am

re:" You are in the intersection when it turns red. I guess with the new cameras, you are the f....ed."

Nope. As always, you're fine if you enter the intersection before it turns red.